The enemies of America want the United States to fail.

This is true. I've never heard an opposition party openly hoping a President to fail or the leaders of that party setting the agenda that the President will be a one term President.

You're gettin' the spanking you so richy deserve, puppy:

If it's unpatriotic and supposedly treasonous for conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to want Barack Obama's policies to fail in the middle of a serious recession, is it similarly so for Democrats who wished President Bush wouldn't succeed while the nation was at war?

In August 2006, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asked the following of 900 registered voters:


Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?

Here are the stunning results (h/t Patterico via NB reader Thomas Stewart):

[Democrats: 51% fail]

Yes, that says 51 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Independents didn't want President Bush to succeed...even though our nation was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn. [...]

Read more: Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail in 2006 Poll, Will Media Care? | NewsBusters.org

The man had just lied us into a war for gods sake.

He was lying constantly about nearly everything he said.

Today its YOU people lying about what Obama is doing.

Taxes are the lowest they have been in 50 years and you pretend they have been raised by Obama.

Your team constantly calls him things he is not and votes against laws they have written themselves to try and hurt him.

There is a differance between party members hoping the guy lying people into their graves doesnt suceede and Elected officials voting against what they stood for last week to harm a presidents chances of re election.

1.The post was in response to several of your fellow leftists decrying any who would wish a President to fail.
I showed how prevalent that opinion was on your side of the aisle.

2. I just love, love, love your posts! You make my side of the debate so very easy!!!

a. "The man had just lied us into a war for gods sake.

He was lying constantly about nearly everything he said."

I'll assume you are referring to the yellow cake from Niger...

Let's set the record straight...again:

"Joe Wilson is a liar and not a particularly good one at that. As the report, starting on p. 39 and going through p. 47 very carefully explains, the claims that Wilson during his media blitz and subsequent canonization as a representative of all that is righteous and pure within anti-war circles were every bit as misleading if not factually inaccurate as anything that one may charge that the administration had done. Even more so, I would argue, if only for the fact that he was making claims about a number of issues, for example the forged documents referring to Niger, of which he had no actual knowledge - a very polite way of saying that the man was blowing smoke out his ass.

In conventional anti-war mythology, the name of Wilson's wife was leaked to the press in order to punish him for having "debunked" the administration's claims with respect to Iraq attempting to purchase uranium from Africa. As the report very clearly indicates, this was simply not the case and while it is indeed puzzling why the administration allowed him to go on as long as he did during his 15 minutes of fame without airing some of this information to the public given the considerable damage that he did to the president's reputation during this period.The Senate Intelligence Committee Report - Winds of Change.NET


And...

"When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials’ accounts in some respects…Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. ....Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.”
He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection…

He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium,http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=665

and....

"The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads
1. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale,…
2. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
3. Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
4. [T]he CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."
5. Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html


How about this:


"The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain."
•A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
•Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. "

FactCheck.org: Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
FactCheck.org : Search Results
FactCheck.org: Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying


Now, I understand how abashed you must feel, having made such ridiculous charges...you should be more carefull, 'else folks may think you to be a dummy.
 
Changing the Position? Ha! :lol:

Nope.

And none of these even come close to fulfilling the criteria I set in this thread.

I'll do it again..as plain as punch.

-Elected Democratic Leader openly advocating for the Opposition party's President to fail and/or setting a policy agenda geared to make the Opposition President a one term President.

Go.

You make it too easy. The answer lies in the Election Process, silly. That's why we have Elections. If you think Democratic Party Leaders Support much of Anything coming from the other side of the Aisle, you are misinformed. I'm surprised at your claim. Your thinking is somehow inverted. The Norm is to oppose the opposition Sallow. 8 Year's effecting Public opinion against Bush, and you want to depict it as the DNC Leadership had nothing to do with it? Not realistic.

Tip O'Neill had a great working relationship with Reagan. George HW Bush and George W Bush got most of their agenda through the congress. The toughest fights for George W. Bush was the tax cuts, immigration and the modification of SSI to a de facto 401k account.

So again.

It still stands.

Link something. Not entertainers. Not pundits.

Democratic leaders that said that they were going to make the Opposition's President a one term president..or that they wanted his policies to fail.
 
This is true. I've never heard an opposition party openly hoping a President to fail or the leaders of that party setting the agenda that the President will be a one term President.
You must have an extremely short memory.

The Democrats said the exact same things about President Bush

After 9/11, Bush was the most popular president in American history. Just like Republicans turned a surplus into a deficit, they, and Bush, turned trust into lies.
 
Nope.

And none of these even come close to fulfilling the criteria I set in this thread.

I'll do it again..as plain as punch.

-Elected Democratic Leader openly advocating for the Opposition party's President to fail and/or setting a policy agenda geared to make the Opposition President a one term President.

Go.

You make it too easy. The answer lies in the Election Process, silly. That's why we have Elections. If you think Democratic Party Leaders Support much of Anything coming from the other side of the Aisle, you are misinformed. I'm surprised at your claim. Your thinking is somehow inverted. The Norm is to oppose the opposition Sallow. 8 Year's effecting Public opinion against Bush, and you want to depict it as the DNC Leadership had nothing to do with it? Not realistic.

Tip O'Neill had a great working relationship with Reagan. George HW Bush and George W Bush got most of their agenda through the congress. The toughest fights for George W. Bush was the tax cuts, immigration and the modification of SSI to a de facto 401k account.

So again.

It still stands.

Link something. Not entertainers. Not pundits.

Democratic leaders that said that they were going to make the Opposition's President a one term president..or that they wanted his policies to fail.

The Bush tax cuts weren't hard. Republicans passed that through reconciliation. Like the multi trillion dollar drugs for votes bill.
 
Wow.

First post directed to me..that wasn't directed toward you and asking to swallow my load.

Gosh you are a freak. Your obsession is noticed.

For the cheap seats. There's no way I would let you..or any other guy suck my dick.

Not how I am hard wired. I like girls.

You may like men..and there's nothing wrong with that mind you..

But stop asking straight men to gargle their cum...boy.

Looks bad.



You're trying too hard, Swallow. No one buys this transparent over-compensation bit. Look, your lifestyle choices are up to you, but try to keep it to yourself.

Buys what? Facts are facts. In this thread..you captured a post that was not directed to you to ask for a swallow.

Why is that?

Because little boy..you are pretty gay.

I can't help you. :lol:




Stop begging Swallow, you're humiliating yourself.
 
You're gettin' the spanking you so richy deserve, puppy:

If it's unpatriotic and supposedly treasonous for conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to want Barack Obama's policies to fail in the middle of a serious recession, is it similarly so for Democrats who wished President Bush wouldn't succeed while the nation was at war?

In August 2006, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asked the following of 900 registered voters:


Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?

Here are the stunning results (h/t Patterico via NB reader Thomas Stewart):

[Democrats: 51% fail]

Yes, that says 51 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Independents didn't want President Bush to succeed...even though our nation was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn. [...]

Read more: Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail in 2006 Poll, Will Media Care? | NewsBusters.org

The man had just lied us into a war for gods sake.

He was lying constantly about nearly everything he said.

Today its YOU people lying about what Obama is doing.

Taxes are the lowest they have been in 50 years and you pretend they have been raised by Obama.

Your team constantly calls him things he is not and votes against laws they have written themselves to try and hurt him.

There is a differance between party members hoping the guy lying people into their graves doesnt suceede and Elected officials voting against what they stood for last week to harm a presidents chances of re election.

1.The post was in response to several of your fellow leftists decrying any who would wish a President to fail.
I showed how prevalent that opinion was on your side of the aisle.

2. I just love, love, love your posts! You make my side of the debate so very easy!!!

a. "The man had just lied us into a war for gods sake.

He was lying constantly about nearly everything he said."

I'll assume you are referring to the yellow cake from Niger...

Let's set the record straight...again:

"Joe Wilson is a liar and not a particularly good one at that. As the report, starting on p. 39 and going through p. 47 very carefully explains, the claims that Wilson during his media blitz and subsequent canonization as a representative of all that is righteous and pure within anti-war circles were every bit as misleading if not factually inaccurate as anything that one may charge that the administration had done. Even more so, I would argue, if only for the fact that he was making claims about a number of issues, for example the forged documents referring to Niger, of which he had no actual knowledge - a very polite way of saying that the man was blowing smoke out his ass.

In conventional anti-war mythology, the name of Wilson's wife was leaked to the press in order to punish him for having "debunked" the administration's claims with respect to Iraq attempting to purchase uranium from Africa. As the report very clearly indicates, this was simply not the case and while it is indeed puzzling why the administration allowed him to go on as long as he did during his 15 minutes of fame without airing some of this information to the public given the considerable damage that he did to the president's reputation during this period.The Senate Intelligence Committee Report - Winds of Change.NET


And...

"When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials’ accounts in some respects…Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. ....Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.”
He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection…

He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium,http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=665

and....

"The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads
1. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale,…
2. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
3. Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
4. [T]he CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."
5. Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html


How about this:


"The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain."
•A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
•Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. "

FactCheck.org: Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
FactCheck.org : Search Results
FactCheck.org: Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying


Now, I understand how abashed you must feel, having made such ridiculous charges...you should be more carefull, 'else folks may think you to be a dummy.



But...but...that's not on the list of left-wing talking points!
 
Nope.

And none of these even come close to fulfilling the criteria I set in this thread.

I'll do it again..as plain as punch.

-Elected Democratic Leader openly advocating for the Opposition party's President to fail and/or setting a policy agenda geared to make the Opposition President a one term President.

Go.

You make it too easy. The answer lies in the Election Process, silly. That's why we have Elections. If you think Democratic Party Leaders Support much of Anything coming from the other side of the Aisle, you are misinformed. I'm surprised at your claim. Your thinking is somehow inverted. The Norm is to oppose the opposition Sallow. 8 Year's effecting Public opinion against Bush, and you want to depict it as the DNC Leadership had nothing to do with it? Not realistic.

Tip O'Neill had a great working relationship with Reagan. George HW Bush and George W Bush got most of their agenda through the congress. The toughest fights for George W. Bush was the tax cuts, immigration and the modification of SSI to a de facto 401k account.

So again.

It still stands.

Link something. Not entertainers. Not pundits.

Democratic leaders that said that they were going to make the Opposition's President a one term president..or that they wanted his policies to fail.

You are trying too hard. You are missing the point. John Kerry tried to make Bush a one term President. So did Every Democrat and Voter that supported Him.

So have you listened to Paterson yet? He's on now. No excuses. :D
 
This is true. I've never heard an opposition party openly hoping a President to fail or the leaders of that party setting the agenda that the President will be a one term President.

I have: When Bush was president

Easy enough.

Link it.

Elected Democratic Politician and/or Party leader stating their number one policy was to insure that George W. Bush was a one term President and one openly stating they want the President to fail.

Easy enough.
 
You make it too easy. The answer lies in the Election Process, silly. That's why we have Elections. If you think Democratic Party Leaders Support much of Anything coming from the other side of the Aisle, you are misinformed. I'm surprised at your claim. Your thinking is somehow inverted. The Norm is to oppose the opposition Sallow. 8 Year's effecting Public opinion against Bush, and you want to depict it as the DNC Leadership had nothing to do with it? Not realistic.

Tip O'Neill had a great working relationship with Reagan. George HW Bush and George W Bush got most of their agenda through the congress. The toughest fights for George W. Bush was the tax cuts, immigration and the modification of SSI to a de facto 401k account.

So again.

It still stands.

Link something. Not entertainers. Not pundits.

Democratic leaders that said that they were going to make the Opposition's President a one term president..or that they wanted his policies to fail.

You are trying too hard. You are missing the point. John Kerry tried to make Bush a one term President. So did Every Democrat and Voter that supported Him.

So have you listened to Paterson yet? He's on now. No excuses. :D

Not trying to hard at all.

While it may have been a desire of Democrats it wasn't policy.

That's a very big difference.
 
Nope.

And none of these even come close to fulfilling the criteria I set in this thread.

I'll do it again..as plain as punch.

-Elected Democratic Leader openly advocating for the Opposition party's President to fail and/or setting a policy agenda geared to make the Opposition President a one term President.

Go.

You make it too easy. The answer lies in the Election Process, silly. That's why we have Elections. If you think Democratic Party Leaders Support much of Anything coming from the other side of the Aisle, you are misinformed. I'm surprised at your claim. Your thinking is somehow inverted. The Norm is to oppose the opposition Sallow. 8 Year's effecting Public opinion against Bush, and you want to depict it as the DNC Leadership had nothing to do with it? Not realistic.

No it doesn't.

Elections are elections. And campaigns for elections are separate (at least they use to be) from setting domestic and foreign policy.

The criteria is simple. Find an elected Democratic Leader advocating for a policy of making the Opposition President a one term president.

Find an elected Democratic Leader advocating for the failure of the Opposition leader's policies.

I can go a bit further. 2 Democratic presidents were impeached..by the Republicans. And 2 Republican Presidents, who lost the popular vote..where put into the office by the Supreme Court.

Republicans are constantly nullifying elections and advocating for making it harder to vote.

False. There is a Constitutional Process to determine who wins the Election, should there be a problem with tabulating the Vote. DNC interfered with that process, by involving the Courts.

Pelosi and Reid both worked to undermine and Demonize Bush, they did not work alone.
 
You make it too easy. The answer lies in the Election Process, silly. That's why we have Elections. If you think Democratic Party Leaders Support much of Anything coming from the other side of the Aisle, you are misinformed. I'm surprised at your claim. Your thinking is somehow inverted. The Norm is to oppose the opposition Sallow. 8 Year's effecting Public opinion against Bush, and you want to depict it as the DNC Leadership had nothing to do with it? Not realistic.

No it doesn't.

Elections are elections. And campaigns for elections are separate (at least they use to be) from setting domestic and foreign policy.

The criteria is simple. Find an elected Democratic Leader advocating for a policy of making the Opposition President a one term president.

Find an elected Democratic Leader advocating for the failure of the Opposition leader's policies.

I can go a bit further. 2 Democratic presidents were impeached..by the Republicans. And 2 Republican Presidents, who lost the popular vote..where put into the office by the Supreme Court.

Republicans are constantly nullifying elections and advocating for making it harder to vote.

False. There is a Constitutional Process to determine who wins the Election, should there be a problem with tabulating the Vote. DNC interfered with that process, by involving the Courts.

Pelosi and Reid both worked to undermine and Demonize Bush, they did not work alone.

Bush still lost the overall popular vote, regardless of Florida.
 
Ideology is more important to conservative Randians/water carriers for Wall St. than jobs for the poor and middle- class.
 
You are the enemy.

For wanting people to be free and prosperous?

How evil!
For wanting Americans to suffer the loss of their jobs first. Only after Americans suffer for not voting for the GOP do CON$ want them to prosper.

I don't think it's that at all. Face it, we have incompatible views as to how to move ahead. Our Visions, our definitions as to quality of life, positive direction are not the same.

We don't want anyone to suffer any more than you claim you do. Our methods are different. We see your methods causing more harm, not less. Your Academics are piss poor on Business sense.

We are in a downward spiral, sad if you are trying your best, diabolical if intentional, "The End Justifies The Means". Criminal actually.
 

Forum List

Back
Top